Powerful, horrific, emphatic....all at the same time

Rating: 8/10 (23 January 2006)

This is a film that is macabre yet aching, violent yet emphatic. Take a would-be mediocre apocalyptic zombie flick, add some philosophy into it coupled with a haunting setting and atmosphere, and you have a great zombie flick that reminisces the 1940s' Dawn of the Dead.
A team of human rights activists breaks into a lab and attempts to free a bunch of infected monkeys. The scientists warn that the monkeys are infected with 'Rage', a newly discovered virus which spreads by blood. Those who are infected with 'Rage' will develop a thirst to kill in 10 seconds, and once they have, they cannot be stopped without having to be killed. Unfortunately, the scientists' warnings fall on deaf ears and the monkeys are freed...and to put it to words, all hell breaks loose.
28 days later, a guy named Jim (Murphy) wakes up in a hospital to find that the whole of London is desolate. He learns that the 'Rage' virus had spread throughout London and caused everyone to kill each other. So everyone is either dead or evacuated. He manages to catch up with some survivors and joins them in their fight to survive. Much to his dismay, he learns that now he cannot afford to trust anyone and in order to survive, friends, family and even allies have to be killed. The intensity of the situation and the will to survive has brought the worst out in everyone, and those who should really be their true allies might turn to be their real enemies (you will learn about this at the end of the movie).
The factor that stands 28 Days Later out from most zombie flicks is the incorporation of a more visceral twist to the story; this movie asks questions that challenge the darker sides of human nature -- in a desperate situation such as this, will you let your emotions kick in? Have the survivors themselves become killing machines in their own right? Have we become like the 'infected' themselves -- slaying families, friends and allies with no mercy, all just in an attempt to make it out of a seemingly hopeless situation? The only law that applies to such a situation would be 'survival of the fittest', that is, the strong will survive and the weak will not. But is surviving really worth it, after shedding so much blood from those you used to know, love, care about? Are we, after all, the real killers?
For the second part of this movie (which a lot of people deem as unnecessary and incredulous) I have to agree wholeheartedly with the reviewers who say that it is an important part of the story. Could the people who are supposed to be our true allies (the British soldiers) be after all, our true enemies? The answer might be a little bit psychological; it seems that they have been so emotionally shaken and traumatised by such a catastrophe that they become no longer humane. And in the end, is it better to live in such inhumane and horrific conditions, perhaps for the rest of their lives, or to die?
Powerful, horrific, emphatic, compelling...all at the same time, 28 Days Later is a horror film like no other. A true masterpiece.